danwismar wrote:Sorry, jb...my rights have been infringed if the organizations trying to articulate a conservative message with which I broadly agree were intimidated and harassed into silence, and their abilities to raise funds restricted by the abuses of the organs of government. 2012 was not a landslide.

I'll send you a parka so you can make it through that Siberian winter in the Gulag.

Coheren't

I'll give you this, my friend. You are a master of reductio ad absurdum.

Keep looking at your shoes.

"I believe it is the nature of the human species to reject what is true but unpleasant and to embrace what is obviously false but comforting." H.L. Mencken

Final thought: It is not as if this is an open question that is waiting for an answer...that is...were there political motivations driving IRS enforcement and consideration of 501c3 and 501c4 applications? Asked and answered. The IRS has admitted it, and apologized for it already...

They admitted to political motivations? Or merely the filtering of applications by less than politically-neutral criteria?

Don't misunderstand me, I think both are wrong. But the gap between "Let's do what we can to suppress the political enemies of Barack Obama" and "These 501c4 applications are inherently sketchy, and we're seeing the number of them skyrocket leading up to the election. It feels like the sketchiness and skyrocketing numbers are more tied to conservative applicants, so let's filter them THIS way"--is pretty huge, IMO. The former calls for the jailing & impeaching of anyone who knew about it. The latter, maybe some dumbasses just need fired.

Kind of a similar difference, it seems to me, between law enforcement using racial profiling because they're evil racists and law enforcement using racial profiling because they're being lazy and stupid.

A couple of points. The early claim by the IRS was that the number of 501c4 applications by conservative groups had "skyrocketed" has been debunked. It didn't. It increased slightly, and only slightly, but after the "BOLO" policies were put in place.

And if "these 501c3 applications are inherently sketchy", then equal treatment should have been afforded ALL applications. It has been well documented now that this was not the case.

I see your point(s), but your first line seems to me to be a distinction without a difference....the second question a euphemism for the first.

"I believe it is the nature of the human species to reject what is true but unpleasant and to embrace what is obviously false but comforting." H.L. Mencken

danwismar wrote:And if "these 501c3 applications are inherently sketchy", then equal treatment should have been afforded ALL applications.

Agreed.

danwismar wrote:I see your point(s), but your first sentence seems to me to be a distinction without a difference.

So, racial profiling in airports. Are people being targeted because they're muslim, and the targeters are hostile to their ethnicity/religion? Or are people being targeted because the targeters think (rightly or wrongly) that their muslimness is a relevant consideration for security? I don't think that's a distinction without a difference.

danwismar wrote:Sorry, jb...my rights have been infringed if the organizations trying to articulate a conservative message with which I broadly agree were intimidated and harassed into silence, and their abilities to raise funds restricted by the abuses of the organs of government. 2012 was not a landslide.

I'll send you a parka so you can make it through that Siberian winter in the Gulag.

Coheren't

I'll give you this, my friend. You are a master of reductio ad absurdum.

Keep looking at your shoes.

See, this is where we turn from disagreeing to being disagreeable, and I don't want that with you, Dan. It's silly. I like you, dude.

But much like the old cowboy and The Dude in TBL, I rest easier at night knowing you and your kind are keeping the "Christ" in "Chistmas" safe for me guarding the fronteer while I lazily reap the benefits of your vigilence.

That was bush. I just coulnd't resist. So only fair last word is yours.

OK, so you play the game smart, get HI for the more common obvious reasons. I figured as such. Now, in the past and present, why do so many not do as you do? I'm not talking about the people who absolutely with no questions asked cannot.

Ohh oohh! I know, Mister Kotter!

Either 1 - They are dumb and you can't fix stupid but why should those who aren't pay for them?2 - They just freeload at the e-room when they need health care and my insurance premiums pay for them;3 - They are young and feel invinceable and the doc in the $ 75 / visit box for the STD or winter coughing crud antibiotic is a better deal.4 - They may truly not be able to afford it.

danwismar wrote:Sorry, jb...my rights have been infringed if the organizations trying to articulate a conservative message with which I broadly agree were intimidated and harassed into silence, and their abilities to raise funds restricted by the abuses of the organs of government. 2012 was not a landslide.

I'll send you a parka so you can make it through that Siberian winter in the Gulag.

Coheren't

I'll give you this, my friend. You are a master of reductio ad absurdum.

Keep looking at your shoes.

See, this is where we turn from disagreeing to being disagreeable, and I don't want that with you, Dan. It's silly. I like you, dude.

But much like the old cowboy and The Dude in TBL, I rest easier at night knowing you and your kind are keeping the "Christ" in "Chistmas" safe for me guarding the fronteer while I lazily reap the benefits of your vigilence.

That was bush. I just coulnd't resist. So only fair last word is yours.

Cheers.

In all sincereity, have a good one.

Sorry, man. That last crack was uncalled for, and I regret it. I'd love for you and me and a few other people who give a shit to breathe some life back into NHB. The line about reductio ad absurdum was meant to be a sincere compliment. Peace.

"I believe it is the nature of the human species to reject what is true but unpleasant and to embrace what is obviously false but comforting." H.L. Mencken

danwismar wrote:Sorry, jb...my rights have been infringed if the organizations trying to articulate a conservative message with which I broadly agree were intimidated and harassed into silence, and their abilities to raise funds restricted by the abuses of the organs of government. 2012 was not a landslide.

I'll send you a parka so you can make it through that Siberian winter in the Gulag.

Coheren't

I'll give you this, my friend. You are a master of reductio ad absurdum.

Keep looking at your shoes.

See, this is where we turn from disagreeing to being disagreeable, and I don't want that with you, Dan. It's silly. I like you, dude.

But much like the old cowboy and The Dude in TBL, I rest easier at night knowing you and your kind are keeping the "Christ" in "Chistmas" safe for me guarding the fronteer while I lazily reap the benefits of your vigilence.

That was bush. I just coulnd't resist. So only fair last word is yours.

Cheers.

In all sincereity, have a good one.

Sorry, man. That last crack was uncalled for, and I regret it. I'd love for you and me and a few other people who give a shit to breathe some life back into NHB. The line about reductio ad absurdum was meant to be a sincere compliment. Peace.

HoodooMan wrote: So, racial profiling in airports. Are people being targeted because they're muslim, and the targeters are hostile to their ethnicity/religion? Or are people being targeted because the targeters think (rightly or wrongly) that their muslimness is a relevant consideration for security? I don't think that's a distinction without a difference.

I don't either. Maybe it is prudent security policy to pay more attention to young Muslim men than to Norwegian-American grandmothers from Minneapolis, rather than pretend they represent equally likely threats to hijack airliners. Because history.

Problem is (sorry for being repetitive) Islam ain't a race, as our recent lesson with two literally Caucasian bombers attests. For me, the successful policy used by the Israelis, to pay more attention to airline passenger behavior than to their skin color or nationality, ought to be a point of emphasis for us too. Better IT...i.e. watchlists etc, would help too.

Still I'm not sure the analogy is apt. Organizations seeking legal non-profit status....versus keeping air travel safe from terrorists? Unless you're starting from the premise that one particular sort of citizen organization...in this case, conservative ones...represent a threat to public safety, rather than just a viewpoint different from the party currently in charge of the process. Still waiting for that first outbreak of tea party violence.

"I believe it is the nature of the human species to reject what is true but unpleasant and to embrace what is obviously false but comforting." H.L. Mencken

HoodooMan wrote: So, racial profiling in airports. Are people being targeted because they're muslim, and the targeters are hostile to their ethnicity/religion? Or are people being targeted because the targeters think (rightly or wrongly) that their muslimness is a relevant consideration for security? I don't think that's a distinction without a difference.

I don't either. Maybe it is prudent security policy to pay more attention to young Muslim men than to Norwegian-American grandmothers from Minneapolis, rather than pretend they represent equally likely threats to hijack airliners. Because history.

Problem is (sorry for being repetitive) Islam ain't a race, as our recent lesson with two literally Caucasian bombers attests. For me, the successful policy used by the Israelis, to pay more attention to airline passenger behavior than to their skin color or nationality, ought to be a point of emphasis for us too. Better IT...i.e. watchlists etc, would help too.

Still I'm not sure the analogy is apt. Organizations seeking legal non-profit status....versus keeping air travel safe from terrorists? Unless you're starting from the premise that one particular sort of citizen organization...in this case, conservative ones...represent a threat to public safety, rather than just a viewpoint different from the party currently in charge of the process. Still waiting for that first outbreak of tea party violence.

This is why I always fly SWA if humanly possible.

Best to be on a plane with as many conservative red necks as humanly possible.

googleeph2 wrote:YFC: If/when the US becomes less dependent upon the Middle East (my BS detector is up on those Asian reports), will there be less demand for crude oil? Will it become a lot less expensive, or will emerging nations keep demand up?

I am not an expert on this and have only recently been reading about this so I may know enough to just be dangerous. The articles I have read seem to indicate that global demand will continue to increase for oil but that due to new extraction technology that the supply has increased dramatically and sometime between 2020 and 2030 the US will effectively become self-reliant.

They also mentioned that China probably has as much shale oil as the US but they are a good decade or two behind the US in the technology and logistics to extract the shale oil. This may be true but I work in China a lot (different industry) and from what I see they can very quickly shift and get things done. This is what I question, can China more quickly ramp-up their efforts to extract shale oil? If so, what happens to the middle east oil revenue and stability in that context?

YahooFanChicago wrote:Very interesting news stories recently in the Asian press about the US looming energy independence associated with shale oil/fracking and the impact that will have on the World's geopolitical situation.

I guess time will tell if this scenario plays out. How nice would it be to gradually unwind our involvement in that region and force China to have to be the local enforecement cop in order to maintain their oil supply.

This is just the sort of strategic thinking that interests me. This is where I think wise leadership would take us, party affiliation and ideoological thinking be damned.

How does China play into the global energy maket vis a vis direct access? Are they on their own or do they buy from the general market?

I agree with your views and I also think that this is an interesting topic. With limited global commodities like oil, iron, rare earth metals used to make high powered batteries for hybrid cars, smart phones, etc. the Chinese have been playing chess and our American govt has been playing checkers. Hopefully we use these recent shale oil supply developments to our long-term strategic advantage.

I am no expert but there is a global market for crude oil, refined oil, etc.. I believe that the US has extremely strong legislation preventing the export of US crude oil outside the United States. We also don't buy from Iran, Venzuela, etc. so that global oil market is not perfectly efficient.

Teh development of a huge local US energy supply like this could have massive implications on the US in terms of foreign policy, where our military investments are made and most importantly to me, US Manufacturing competitiveness. I am much more interested in these issues and opportunities then I am in internal US politicing and fighting over which political party is crapier than the next.

You must have missed my example of the restriction on the free exercise of my formerly-permitted right to an economic arrangement to purchase health care insurance from a provider of my choosing, on terms to our mutual benefit. Maybe that's not jack-booted enough to qualify for you, but it is a limiting of my freedom.

Speaking for all the liberals and people who voted for Obama, I deeply apologize for this inexcusable and insidious infringement on your freedoms.

You must have missed my example of the restriction on the free exercise of my formerly-permitted right to an economic arrangement to purchase health care insurance from a provider of my choosing, on terms to our mutual benefit. Maybe that's not jack-booted enough to qualify for you, but it is a limiting of my freedom.

Speaking for all the liberals and people who voted for Obama, I deeply apologize for this inexcusable and insidious infringement on your freedoms.

It's terrible.

You're handling it well.

I didn't miss the dripping sarcasm, but technically this makes you the first lefty to apologize for this monstrosity, which was passed without popular support, crammed through Congress on a wholly partisan vote, using every imaginable special deal and carve-out, with exceptions and waivers for political cronies and union special interests, and supported by outright lies from the president about the ability to keep your current plan if you like it, etc. I realize it's the law until it isn't any more. Just know you're in the minority if you like and support it.

"I believe it is the nature of the human species to reject what is true but unpleasant and to embrace what is obviously false but comforting." H.L. Mencken

e0y2e3 wrote:But American democracy is uberman to many, eh? At least here.

The land started to be free from religious and physical restraints (unless you're black, then you were a slave and unless you don't like the bible)...

It's far more Plato than uberman, but what does America know about the difference between Plato and Nietzsche.

Land of the free! Home of the brave!

I get you're trying to make a point to the rest of the board, and since I dont fit your stereotype I could care less, but you did write "champions racism" which is simply not true, at least compared to ROW.

That's all. The rest I pretty much agree with.

I don't need to be patient, they're going to be shit forever. - CDT, discussing my favorite NFL team

YahooFanChicago wrote:Very interesting news stories recently in the Asian press about the US looming energy independence associated with shale oil/fracking and the impact that will have on the World's geopolitical situation.

I guess time will tell if this scenario plays out. How nice would it be to gradually unwind our involvement in that region and force China to have to be the local enforecement cop in order to maintain their oil supply.

This is just the sort of strategic thinking that interests me. This is where I think wise leadership would take us, party affiliation and ideoological thinking be damned.

How does China play into the global energy maket vis a vis direct access? Are they on their own or do they buy from the general market?

I agree with your views and I also think that this is an interesting topic. With limited global commodities like oil, iron, rare earth metals used to make high powered batteries for hybrid cars, smart phones, etc. the Chinese have been playing chess and our American govt has been playing checkers. Hopefully we use these recent shale oil supply developments to our long-term strategic advantage.

I am no expert but there is a global market for crude oil, refined oil, etc.. I believe that the US has extremely strong legislation preventing the export of US crude oil outside the United States. We also don't buy from Iran, Venzuela, etc. so that global oil market is not perfectly efficient.

Teh development of a huge local US energy supply like this could have massive implications on the US in terms of foreign policy, where our military investments are made and most importantly to me, US Manufacturing competitiveness. I am much more interested in these issues and opportunities then I am in internal US politicing and fighting over which political party is crapier than the next.

Me too, big time. I really don't think many are interested in sustaining a discussion that transcends politics where the jersey you wear defines your position, not vice versa.

The ground you cover here is where I, too, get hazy.

I know that there is no such thing as US Iol Independance as we are not a nationalist state nor will we move there (despite the hand wringing of the conservatives).

I know oil is produced somehow by some entity. These entities may be the big few global oil companies; Mobile-Exxon, Shell, BP or Phillips-Conoco, or they may be state-run oil companies. Iget foggy as to who is precisely doing what and where.

I know oil is a commodity that is produced to a market and the oil bought off the market for it's various uses.

I do not intimately know the intricacies of the production to market ways and means. For example, how in the HELL do you enforce not buying Iranian oil? And while dead Hugo could decide to sell to the Chinese and not Exxon, how does he keepthe actual barrells seperated when they are sold on a market to the west?

My hypothesis is that this is all fungible bullcrap; one big 3 card monty. China needs oil. They will make a deal with Angola to produce and buy or they will buy from an open market what is produced in Alaska. The ultimate global supply and demand is essentially unregulated. It will ultimately flow based on how much money is to be made and who wants to buy the oil and the price will modulate on market forces.

I hypothesize taht there is enough western oil hitting the market to say to the ME bugger off politically now that Russia is ramped up to speed (remember, no Russian oil hit the market before the 1990's as they were an autarky based economy or within their bloc) and US production is up, plus the many other 3rd world nations and SA nations producing. The game has changed. has it changed enough that even if a pan-islamic ME formed and they put oil on the market without a US puppet in Saudi Arabia there weouldn't be a seizmic shock to supply and thus the market price? IDK but I am open to the possibility.

IF that is true, if, then our interests, real-politik, not Toby Keith mouth breathing dumb ass bullshit, have moved on from the middle east. F 'em. Leave and create a vaccuum.

If the Chicomms take the vaccum, they willbe the sorriest mofo's ever. They will be the new Great Satan (TM). Islamicists are already causing issues in their far western provinces as I understand it. Again, if they hate christians wait until they get a load of an athiest communist state that has brutality and uses it on a whim, not after hand wringing.

If a pan-Islamicist movement takes the void (more likely), good. let 'em do it. They will turn on each other, oppress their own people and there will be no boogeyman for them to blame for long. They will blame the west for as longas they can but eventually poverty will catch up with them. It may take a generation. It may take a century. But as sure as I am sitting here writing this corrupt and incompetent states that fail their people and create abject wealth distribution abuse will always, always, always topple from within crushed undertheir own wait.

Exit statement: if there ever is an islamic nucular attack it will be against India, not the US. Butinasmuch as those islamicists jokying for power are rational actors using irrational means to obtain power, they will stop short. They want the derterrent just like everyone else.

Anyhow, if anyone can explain the global oil market and who plays and who operates purely via old-style statest nationalist/communism, and do so with credibility and not a myopic political D/R nonsense agenda, I'd love to learn more.

e0y2e3 wrote:But American democracy is uberman to many, eh? At least here.

The land started to be free from religious and physical restraints (unless you're black, then you were a slave and unless you don't like the bible)...

It's far more Plato than uberman, but what does America know about the difference between Plato and Nietzsche.

Land of the free! Home of the brave!

I guess what I'm hearing you saying is that you wish all of mankind were as free of bigotry and prejudice and hatred as you yourself are...

...or you suspect there is a country or a society somewhere else that is devoid of it, where you would prefer to live? Pray tell where?

And I guess America is fatally flawed because we were born under a pre-existing system of slavery...an evil institution that has existed in nearly every culture, on every continent, throughout history, and exists today in parts of the world. Western civilization isn't unique in having had slavery, but it is rather unique in having abolished it (a century and a half ago) by the efforts of people not subject to it...(led by the Christians for whom you seem to have such contempt, by the way)

You haven't cited any examples of how , as you say, "bigotry wins the day" here in America, so I'm not sure to what you refer.

Please also help me out by telling me how atheists, secularists, or others who "don't like the Bible" are marginalized in our society. From all I can gather, they are celebrated..,(and not just by themselves and each other)

"I believe it is the nature of the human species to reject what is true but unpleasant and to embrace what is obviously false but comforting." H.L. Mencken

jb wrote:Anyhow, if anyone can explain the global oil market and who plays and who operates purely via old-style statest nationalist/communism, and do so with credibility and not a myopic political D/R nonsense agenda, I'd love to learn more.

I have found foreignpolicy.com to be a pretty good, apolitical source for info like that...Here's a search on that site for "oil markets"...

e0y2e3 wrote:But American democracy is uberman to many, eh? At least here.

The land started to be free from religious and physical restraints (unless you're black, then you were a slave and unless you don't like the bible)...

It's far more Plato than uberman, but what does America know about the difference between Plato and Nietzsche.

Land of the free! Home of the brave!

I get you're trying to make a point to the rest of the board, and since I dont fit your stereotype I could care less, but you did write "champions racism" which is simply not true, at least compared to ROW.

That's all. The rest I pretty much agree with.

The irony is most of the rest of the board isn't capable of getting the point.

e0y2e3 wrote:But American democracy is uberman to many, eh? At least here.

The land started to be free from religious and physical restraints (unless you're black, then you were a slave and unless you don't like the bible)...

It's far more Plato than uberman, but what does America know about the difference between Plato and Nietzsche.

Land of the free! Home of the brave!

I guess what I'm hearing you saying is that you wish all of mankind were as free of bigotry and prejudice and hatred as you yourself are...

...or you suspect there is a country or a society somewhere else that is devoid of it, where you would prefer to live? Pray tell where?

And I guess America is fatally flawed because we were born under a pre-existing system of slavery...an evil institution that has existed in nearly every culture, on every continent, throughout history, and exists today in parts of the world. Western civilization isn't unique in having had slavery, but it is rather unique in having abolished it (a century and a half ago) by the efforts of people not subject to it...(led by the Christians for whom you seem to have such contempt, by the way)

You haven't cited any examples of how , as you say, "bigotry wins the day" here in America, so I'm not sure to what you refer.

Please also help me out by telling me how atheists, secularists, or others who "don't like the Bible" are marginalized in our society. From all I can gather, they are celebrated..,(and not just by themselves and each other)

If you don't see the limitations religion places on our society... well... LOL

Nor the still prevalent racism.... well.... LOL

At the end of the day I just don't think you know uberman well enough so you're arguing a point that you can't win since it's aimed at the wrong side of the point.

e0y2e3 wrote:But American democracy is uberman to many, eh? At least here.

The land started to be free from religious and physical restraints (unless you're black, then you were a slave and unless you don't like the bible)...

It's far more Plato than uberman, but what does America know about the difference between Plato and Nietzsche.

Land of the free! Home of the brave!

I guess what I'm hearing you saying is that you wish all of mankind were as free of bigotry and prejudice and hatred as you yourself are...

...or you suspect there is a country or a society somewhere else that is devoid of it, where you would prefer to live? Pray tell where?

And I guess America is fatally flawed because we were born under a pre-existing system of slavery...an evil institution that has existed in nearly every culture, on every continent, throughout history, and exists today in parts of the world. Western civilization isn't unique in having had slavery, but it is rather unique in having abolished it (a century and a half ago) by the efforts of people not subject to it...(led by the Christians for whom you seem to have such contempt, by the way)

You haven't cited any examples of how , as you say, "bigotry wins the day" here in America, so I'm not sure to what you refer.

Please also help me out by telling me how atheists, secularists, or others who "don't like the Bible" are marginalized in our society. From all I can gather, they are celebrated..,(and not just by themselves and each other)

This, a thousand times this.

You'll never get anyone that takes this approach to provide such examples, b/c it is a contrived notion of self righteousness. It's the result of two decades worth of PC mantra stuffed down the throats of the American people. Stuffed so far down their throats that the concept of disagreement is considered intolerant, gee how American. Anymore responses to any of these more traditional issues of tolerance are nothing but a race to condemnation, for the self serving purpose of presenting oneself on the side of uber tolerance and all that is "good". It's beyond fake. It has gotten so out of hand that recently even silence is considered intolerant, see DOJ.

These self serving faux tolerant whack jobs have persisted so much that it has actually reached the point of backlash, many people now often just tune them out.

Criminals in this town used to believe in things...honor, respect."I heard your dog is sick, so bought you this shovel"

JB, spent some time in my PCPs office today so I hit him up on what to expect from Obamacare.

His opinion is that overall Obamacare is just a stepping stone to the inevitable fact that HC in this country, as we know it now, is 100% unsustainable. In his opinion we could last 10 years max the way we're going now. He believes that we most likely will have to ration HC as time goes on, meaning we will face the tough task of ethical and humane choices that so often get referred to as death panels. In his opinion it is inevitable that at some point a person or an algorithm will determine how much treatment/money we spend on continuing fighting specific HC concerns that are unbeatable due to our lack of technology and know how. What he feels is the biggest difference in US care v. Euro/Canada is HC that significantly impacts lifestyle changes (hip replacements, routine organ transplants etc) are done with expedience in the states, but not the case in most of the rest of the world.

For guys like us, similar in age, fully employed at stable (if not large) employers, that are in good health and maintain such, he anticipates little change in the process and some increases in cost. Whether or not that increase is greater than w/o BHOcare is almost moot.

Criminals in this town used to believe in things...honor, respect."I heard your dog is sick, so bought you this shovel"

motherscratcher wrote:You guys can bust BPs balls all you want, but there was a lot of truth in there.

I read some contrived, albeit well articulated, truths based on a particular POV, but lumping Afganistan and Iraq in the same let's scapegoat the US bucket is simply distorting facts to fit an agenda.

Not to mention, lumping everyone that chooses to honor and praise those who sacrifice and risk their lives to protect the way I get to live as a bunch of followers who are to dumb to see the political agenda at work behind the scenes.

I can revere the military for what they do. Someone else can tell me I should revere the military. That does not equal I revere the military because I was told to.

War is bad. Wish there was none. But if there is going to be one/some you better believe I am cheering for the red white and blue and could give two shits about the families on the other side. Sorry.

I was being overly general it's true, but the fact is the powers that be do take advantage of the veneration that the military enjoys and to a large extent they foment that sentiment for their own agenda. I speak as an ex-serviceman, I was in the Royal Engineers and I know that almost every soldier does not consider themselves a hero despite the praise they receive and this is certainly not an attack on our soldiers. I'm not trying to say that I am on a higher intellectual plain because I claim to be aware of this propaganda and see through a governmental agenda. I just want to encourage others to acknowledge the existence of it.

"There is but one thing of real value: to cultivate truth and justice and to live without anger in the midst of lying and unjust men"

YahooFanChicago wrote:Surprisingly no commentary from our resident UK faction about the backlash in the UK after the attack in Woolwich.

Seems like there have been multiple attacks on Mosques, an Islamic cultural center and threats made to the muslim community over in the UK. I guess these acts must not be as repulsive as the airline/passenger incident in Boston where 2 passengers were removed and delayed for a few hours.? And in any event I guess the backlash is directly due to the "American war on terror" so if the British behavior is bad in any way it can be fully attributed to us Yanks.

It's disgusting I found it very ironic that an EDL leader implored people not to judge the entire group on the behaviour of one individual (the person in question had raised his hand in a Fascist salute)

We oppose them every way we can

"There is but one thing of real value: to cultivate truth and justice and to live without anger in the midst of lying and unjust men"

Unlike Belgium, Britain is still complacently ignoring the gory cruelties of its empire

Maria Misra Guardian

Tuesday July 23, 2002

So the Belgians are to return to the Heart of Darkness in an attempt finally to exorcise their imperial demons. Stung by another book cataloguing the violence and misery inflicted by King Leopold's empire on the Congo in the late 19th and early 20th century, the state-funded Royal Museum for Central Africa in Brussels has commissioned a group of historians to pass authoritative judgment on accusations of genocide: forced labour, systematic rape, torture and murder of the Congolese, around 10 million of whom are thought to have died as a consequence.

This is not the first time that the Belgian empire has been singled out for censure. Back in the Edwardian era, British humanitarians spilled much ink over its excesses and Conrad's novella was corralled into service to show Leopold's Congo as a sort of horrific "other" to Britain's more uplifting colonialism.

Complacency about Britain's imperial record lingers on. In the post-September 11 orgy of self-congratulation about the west's superiority, Blair's former foreign policy guru, Robert Cooper, and a host of journalistic flag-wavers were urging us not to be ashamed of empire. Cooper insisted empire was "as necessary now as it had been in the 19th century". The British empire was, we were assured, a generally well-intentioned attempt to inculcate notions of good government, civilised behaviour and market rationality into less well-favoured societies.

Is such a rosy view of British imperialism justified? Many argue that it is. After all, surely the British have less blood on their hands than the French and the Belgians? Wasn't the British addiction to the free market a prophylactic against the horrors of forced labour? And didn't those peculiar class obsessions make them less racist than the rest - silly snobs, but not vicious yobs? And isn't India not only a democracy, but, thanks to the British, one with great railways? Perhaps there is a kernel of truth in some of this, but there's also much wilful smugness. While the complex consequences of colonial economic policy require extended analysis, it is possible to dispel more swiftly the myth that the British Empire, unlike King Leopold's, was innocent of atrocities.

It has become a modern orthodoxy that Europe's 20th century was the bloodiest in history and that atrocities must be recorded and remembered by society as a whole. But while a Black Book of Communism has been compiled and everybody is aware of the horrors of nazism, popular historians have been surprisingly uninterested in the dark side of the British Empire. There are exceptions, such as Mike Davis's powerful Late Victorian Holocausts, but much else still lies buried in the academic literature. Davis and others have estimated that there were between 12 and 33 million avoidable deaths by famine in India between 1876 and 1908, produced by a deadly combination of official callousness and free-market ideology. But these were far from being a purely Victorian phenomenon. As late as 1943 around 4 million died in the Bengal famine, largely because of official policy.

No one has even attempted to quantify the casualties caused by state-backed forced labour on British-owned mines and plantations in India, Africa and Malaya. But we do know that tens of thousands of often conscripted Africans, Indians and Malays - men, women and children - were either killed or maimed constructing Britain's imperial railways. Also unquantified are the numbers of civilian deaths caused by British aerial bombing and gassing of villages in Sudan, Iraq and Palestine in the 1920 and 1930s.

Nor was the supposedly peaceful decolonisation of the British Empire without its gory cruelties. The hurried partition of the Indian subcontinent brought about a million deaths in the ensuing uncontrolled panic and violence. The brutal suppression of the Mau Mau and the detention of thousands of Kenyan peasants in concentration camps are still dimly remembered, as are the Aden killings of the 1960s. But the massacre of communist insurgents by the Scots Guard in Malaya in the 1950s, the decapitation of so-called bandits by the Royal Marine Commandos in Perak and the secret bombing of Malayan villages during the Emergency remain uninvestigated.

One might argue that these were simply the unfortunate consequences of the arrival of economic and political modernity. But does change have to come so brutally? There are plenty of examples of wanton British cruelty to chill the blood even of a hardened Belgian. Who, after all, invented the concentration camp but the British? The scandalous conditions in British camps during the Boer war, where thousands of women and children died of disease and malnutrition, are relatively well known. Who now remembers the Indian famine-relief-cum-work camps, where gentlemanly British officials conducted experiments to determine how few calories an Indian coolie could be fed and still perform hard labour? The rations in these camps amounted to less than those at Buchenwald.

There is Churchill's assiduous promotion of schemes to cut the costs of imperial defence in India and the Middle East by using aerial bombing, machine gunning and gassing for the control of rebellion, political protest, labour disputes and non-payment of taxes.There is the denial of free food to starving south Asians on the grounds that it would simply hasten a population explosion among India's "feckless poor". There is the extraordinary British justification for bombing Sudanese villages after the first world war: Nuer women were, officials claimed, of less value to their community than cattle or rifles.

These facts and figures are not easily culled from textbooks on empire. We don't have a dedicated museum of empire, but our nearest equivalent, the new Imperial War Museum North, would leave the impression that Britain's colonial subjects had been enthusiastic participants in its wartime crusades to rid the world of want and evil.

Does it matter that the British are smug about their imperial past, that British atrocities have been airbrushed from history? One can't help thinking that Jack Straw's pious missions to India to broker solutions to the Kashmir crisis might have more credibility if the British had the good grace to apologise for such imperial crimes as the Amritsar massacre. But a more worrying symptom of this rosy glossing of the imperial past is the re-emergence of a sort of sanitised advocacy of imperialism as a viable option in contemporary international relations.

The point of cataloguing Britain's imperial crimes is not to trash our forebears, but to remind our rulers that even the best-run empires are cruel and violent, not just the Belgian Congo. Overwhelming power, combined with a sense of boundless superiority, will produce atrocities - even among the well intentioned. Let's not forget that Leopold's central African empire was originally called the International Association for Philanthropy in the Congo.

I have never understood why Americans have been able to criticise colonialism with a straight and self-righteous face

Philippines anyone? Globalisation? The new imperialism

"There is but one thing of real value: to cultivate truth and justice and to live without anger in the midst of lying and unjust men"

British_Pharaoh wrote:I have never understood why Americans have been able to criticise colonialism with a straight and self-righteous face

Philippines anyone? Globalisation? The new imperialism

You're eitherA) Really fucking stupidB) Looking for a fightC) Are really intelligent but so unaware of US history that you appear combative while in reality you are just ignorant (and that meaning is not pejorative)

I believe it's C. But I fear it's D - all of the above

I don't need to be patient, they're going to be shit forever. - CDT, discussing my favorite NFL team

Cerebral_DownTime wrote:Speaking for my atheist self, I don't really feel like I've been marginalized. I see a "movement" or whatever that is growing, not shrinking. It's also a lot more vocal than it used to be.

Considered the fastest growing "religious" movement in the US (not atheism, per se, but atheism/agnosticism/unaffiliated with organized religion-ism). There were times (especially as a teen) when I chose not to reveal my beliefs (or lack thereof) due to backlash, but my days of giving a shit what anyone thinks are thankfully behind me.

And when I was younger, I was the only atheist I knew. Now, plenty. Highly doubtful that anything outside of divine intervention will slow the "movement" down.

Well well well, Egypt is rioting again. Seems one of the more modern arab counties doesn't like heading toward sharia law. If left to their own devices the populace has figure out life under the muslim brotherhood, um, sucks.

Quick, we 'd better send troops in to distract them and drive them toward democracy!